Seems pretty frivolous to me. Just eat before you go. Or watch movies on Netflix or from Redbox. If movie theaters are forced to either lower their prices or allow outside food, then what's next? Forcing a 5 star restaurant to provide a dollar menu? I hate overpriced soda and popcorn just as much as the next guy, but that's why I am supportive of theaters that have reasonable prices. Consumers have the power to vote with their feet ... or with their mouths, in this case.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Movie Fan Sues over Theater's High Snack Prices and Ban on Outside Food
Movie Fan Sues over Theater's High Snack Prices and Ban on Outside Food - News - ABA Journal
Friday, March 2, 2012
Apple vs. ... Hollywood?
via GIZMODO: Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey Against Apple in Greatest Legal Defense of All Time (Updated):
Apple is giving Samsung a legal pummelingbecause it thinks the latter stole the iPad's design for the Galaxy Tab. So far, the fight's going well for Apple. But Samsung has something up its sleeve: Apple ripped off science fiction.
[... Samsung argues] the idea for the iPad existed back in 1968, when Stanley Kubrick dreamed up his sci fi classic. And in American patent law, if the idea existed before your patent application—what's known as prior art—your patent is null. So essentially, Samsung is pulling a hell of a legal maneuver here, alleging they couldn't possibly have stolen the iPad's design, because Apple took it from an imaginary science fiction movie space station:
Check out the clip from 2001: A Space Odyssey:
Looks like a couple of iPads to me! More proof of the oncoming Terminator Apocalypse ... i.e., iPad = Hal = evil computer = death to all humans. It's pretty self-explanatory.
Apple is giving Samsung a legal pummelingbecause it thinks the latter stole the iPad's design for the Galaxy Tab. So far, the fight's going well for Apple. But Samsung has something up its sleeve: Apple ripped off science fiction.
[... Samsung argues] the idea for the iPad existed back in 1968, when Stanley Kubrick dreamed up his sci fi classic. And in American patent law, if the idea existed before your patent application—what's known as prior art—your patent is null. So essentially, Samsung is pulling a hell of a legal maneuver here, alleging they couldn't possibly have stolen the iPad's design, because Apple took it from an imaginary science fiction movie space station:
Check out the clip from 2001: A Space Odyssey:
Looks like a couple of iPads to me! More proof of the oncoming Terminator Apocalypse ... i.e., iPad = Hal = evil computer = death to all humans. It's pretty self-explanatory.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Chemerinsky: Supreme Court Weighs First Amendment, the Stolen Valor Act and the Protection of Lies
via ABA Journal:
One of the more fascinating cases on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket this term involves the constitutionality of the federal Stolen Valor Act, a law that makes it a crime for a person to falsely claim to have received a military medal or decoration. In United States v. Alvarez, argued Feb. 22, the court will decide whether the First Amendment protects such false speech. The court has not been consistent as to whether there is First Amendment protection for lies; it has very much depended on the context.
Lie to me. Just don't sue me.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Judge Is Relocated for Safety After His Scolding of 'Doofus' Zombie Muhammad Goes Viral
via ABA Journal:
So the victim (an atheist) is assaulted (allegedly) by a Muslim who was offended (predictably) by his Halloween costume, and the judge scolds ... the victim. For his Halloween costume. What is surprising is not that other people were offended by the judge's actions, but that the judge, who scolded the victim for being offensive to others, seems to be genuinely shocked that his abysmal handling of the situation might also be considered offensive.
From the comments:
"Note that, in the course of his denials, the judge did not deny being a doofus."
Indeed.
UPDATE:
Just to be clear, I don't support (1) the costume idea, (2) the assault, (3) the judge's interpretation of the 1st Amendment, or (4) people threatening the judge. But the costume is the only thing that I would stand up for in court, because even though it's offensive it's still his right to be offensive. That's what Halloween is all about. And candy.
UPDATE via Instapundit:
CATHY YOUNG: Islam, Free Speech, and Democracy: What really happened in the Pennsylvania “zombie Mohammed” case? “In fact, there was no ‘Sharia court,’ and the judge is not a Muslim. But, however egregious the misreporting of the story and the vilification of the judge—Cumberland Country, Pennsylvania magistrate Mark W. Martin, who graciously answered my queries in an email exchange—the actual facts of the story are troubling. Judge Martin’s intent may have been entirely benign, but his handling of the case sends a bad message not only about freedom of speech, but about the place of Islam in American culture. . . . American religious practice, overall, is strongly tied to a hard-won tradition of freedom of religion—and irreligion. Judge Martin’s comments seem to suggest that Muslims are far less capable than Christians of dealing sensibly with insults or challenges to their faith. That does a serious disservice both to American democracy and to American Muslims.”
Indeed.
UPDATE:
Just to be clear, I don't support (1) the costume idea, (2) the assault, (3) the judge's interpretation of the 1st Amendment, or (4) people threatening the judge. But the costume is the only thing that I would stand up for in court, because even though it's offensive it's still his right to be offensive. That's what Halloween is all about. And candy.
UPDATE via Instapundit:
CATHY YOUNG: Islam, Free Speech, and Democracy: What really happened in the Pennsylvania “zombie Mohammed” case? “In fact, there was no ‘Sharia court,’ and the judge is not a Muslim. But, however egregious the misreporting of the story and the vilification of the judge—Cumberland Country, Pennsylvania magistrate Mark W. Martin, who graciously answered my queries in an email exchange—the actual facts of the story are troubling. Judge Martin’s intent may have been entirely benign, but his handling of the case sends a bad message not only about freedom of speech, but about the place of Islam in American culture. . . . American religious practice, overall, is strongly tied to a hard-won tradition of freedom of religion—and irreligion. Judge Martin’s comments seem to suggest that Muslims are far less capable than Christians of dealing sensibly with insults or challenges to their faith. That does a serious disservice both to American democracy and to American Muslims.”
Friday, February 24, 2012
The 5th Amendment goes digital.
via Instapundit:
LAPTOP DECRYPTION UPDATE: Eleventh Circuit Finds Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination Protects Against Being Forced to Decrypt Hard Drive Contents.
UPDATE: The guy is accused of possessing/transferring child pornography. So, that is pretty disgusting. Does that make anyone else less comfortable with the judge upholding his right not to decrypt?
LAPTOP DECRYPTION UPDATE: Eleventh Circuit Finds Fifth Amendment Right Against Self Incrimination Protects Against Being Forced to Decrypt Hard Drive Contents.
UPDATE: The guy is accused of possessing/transferring child pornography. So, that is pretty disgusting. Does that make anyone else less comfortable with the judge upholding his right not to decrypt?
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: The 5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama’s Energy Speech.
via Instapundit:
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: The 5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama’s Energy Speech. “The White House billed President Obama’s energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.”
"We're focused on production."
"The U.S. consumes more than a fifth of the world's oil. But we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves."
"Because of the investments we've made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled."
"We need to double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."
"There are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices."
Wait, I have an idea! Let's make "fat cat" insurance companies provide "free" Chevy Volts to everyone! Problem solved!
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: The 5 Biggest Whoppers In Obama’s Energy Speech. “The White House billed President Obama’s energy policy speech as a response to mounting criticism of record high gas prices. What he delivered was a grab bag of excuses and outright falsehoods.”
"We're focused on production."
"The U.S. consumes more than a fifth of the world's oil. But we only have 2% of the world's oil reserves."
"Because of the investments we've made, the use of clean, renewable energy in this country has nearly doubled."
"We need to double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising."
"There are no short-term silver bullets when it comes to gas prices."
Wait, I have an idea! Let's make "fat cat" insurance companies provide "free" Chevy Volts to everyone! Problem solved!
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Legal Fees Top $100M for Ex-Fannie and Freddie Executives, and Taxpayers Cover the Tab
Legal Fees Top $100M for Ex-Fannie and Freddie Executives, and Taxpayers Cover the Tab: Legal fees for former executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have totaled $109 million since 2004, and taxpayers are advancing the money. A report by the inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency says contracts calling for payment of the fees could have been repudiated when Fannie and Freddie were taken over in 2008, the New York Times reports. The agreements remain, however. Though the contracts provide that the legal fees must be repaid if courts rule against the executives, it’s unlikely they would be able to repay such large amounts, the Times says.
Never mind the hundreds of billions of dollars lost when the housing bubble burst, just as long as we aren't paying anything to the scumbag lawyers!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Sunrise at Rio Vista, California
Had a great day yesterday in the snow at Kirkwood, CA. Before we got up there, though, I had a great moment talking with a couple fishermen launching a boat in Rio Vista and watching the sun come up.
*Photo taken with my HTC Thunderbolt! (No rights reserved, steal away)
*Photo taken with my HTC Thunderbolt! (No rights reserved, steal away)
Friday, February 17, 2012
Google’s notification bar patent could spell trouble for Apple
via AndroidAndMe.com:
Google’s notification bar patent could spell trouble for Apple:
Since Google doesn't own the patent to the notification bar yet, they can’t do anything but sit back and watch Apple use it in all of their most popular devices.
It will be interesting to see what Google does with the patent should they manage to secure it. Will they immediately take Apple to court, or would using it as leverage in other patent negotiations make more sense? This will definitely be worth keeping an eye on.
I bet Apple wishes it could go back to the good ol' days where all they needed was a Justin Long commercial to establish market dominance. Seriously though, let's just stop the pissing match and go back to making great products that everyone wants but no one actually needs. OK?
Google’s notification bar patent could spell trouble for Apple:
Since Google doesn't own the patent to the notification bar yet, they can’t do anything but sit back and watch Apple use it in all of their most popular devices.
It will be interesting to see what Google does with the patent should they manage to secure it. Will they immediately take Apple to court, or would using it as leverage in other patent negotiations make more sense? This will definitely be worth keeping an eye on.
I bet Apple wishes it could go back to the good ol' days where all they needed was a Justin Long commercial to establish market dominance. Seriously though, let's just stop the pissing match and go back to making great products that everyone wants but no one actually needs. OK?
Google files for patent to combat Apple’s Slide to Unlock
via AndroidAndMe.com:
Google files for patent to combat Apple’s Slide to Unlock:
In an attempt to circumvent Apple’s hotly-debated Slide To Unlock patent [see below], which has resulted in a few lawsuits with many more likely on the way, Google has filed a patent of their own for a lockscreen that looks fairly similar to the one found in HTC’s Sense UI.
...
This does not mean that we’ll ever see Google’s lockscreen see the light of day, and the patent office could reject it as being too similar to Apple’s previously granted patent on slide to unlock. I’m no lawyer, but I reckon the likelihood of Google being denied the patent is slim, and this may very well be the lockscreen featured in Android 5.0 (or 4.1), which may or may not debut as early as next quarter.
I am a lawyer and I can't help thinking that this whole smartphone patent war is getting out of control.
Prediction: all of these patents become absurdly irrelevant as more and more independent, open source developers (think App Store or Android Market programmers) take UI design into their own hands. For instance, I have an HTC Android phone (recently, happily jumped off the Apple bandwagon), and I can download custom lock screens for free from the Android Market. Many of these are free and were designed by independent programmers, presumably working out of a basement with one hand on the keyboard and the other in a bag of Cheetos. Some of these lock screens blatantly mimic the iPhone, ICS, HTC Sense, etc. Let's say Apple wins the fight over the slide-to-unlock patent. Are they going to sue just Google? Just Google and the OEMs? Are they gonna sue the guy/gal in the basement too?
Now, before someone reacts to this by saying that I'm being too hard on Apple and letting Google off the hook, please see this. Google is on the "right side of history" here, embracing open source and acquiring patents to defend its Android OS from Apple's proprietary iOS, which has become the "Microsoft" of the new millennium.
Google files for patent to combat Apple’s Slide to Unlock:
In an attempt to circumvent Apple’s hotly-debated Slide To Unlock patent [see below], which has resulted in a few lawsuits with many more likely on the way, Google has filed a patent of their own for a lockscreen that looks fairly similar to the one found in HTC’s Sense UI.
...
This does not mean that we’ll ever see Google’s lockscreen see the light of day, and the patent office could reject it as being too similar to Apple’s previously granted patent on slide to unlock. I’m no lawyer, but I reckon the likelihood of Google being denied the patent is slim, and this may very well be the lockscreen featured in Android 5.0 (or 4.1), which may or may not debut as early as next quarter.
I am a lawyer and I can't help thinking that this whole smartphone patent war is getting out of control.
Prediction: all of these patents become absurdly irrelevant as more and more independent, open source developers (think App Store or Android Market programmers) take UI design into their own hands. For instance, I have an HTC Android phone (recently, happily jumped off the Apple bandwagon), and I can download custom lock screens for free from the Android Market. Many of these are free and were designed by independent programmers, presumably working out of a basement with one hand on the keyboard and the other in a bag of Cheetos. Some of these lock screens blatantly mimic the iPhone, ICS, HTC Sense, etc. Let's say Apple wins the fight over the slide-to-unlock patent. Are they going to sue just Google? Just Google and the OEMs? Are they gonna sue the guy/gal in the basement too?
Now, before someone reacts to this by saying that I'm being too hard on Apple and letting Google off the hook, please see this. Google is on the "right side of history" here, embracing open source and acquiring patents to defend its Android OS from Apple's proprietary iOS, which has become the "Microsoft" of the new millennium.
Apple lands injunction against Motorola in Germany over Slide to Unlock patent
via AndroidAndMe.com:
Apple lands injunction against Motorola in Germany over Slide to Unlock patent:
You remember that Slide to Unlock patent Apple was handed back in October? Turns out the lawsuits are going to get uglier, if a victory secured by Apple in Germany today is any indication. According to FOSS Patents, the Munich I Regional Court just issued an injunction against Motorola smartphones in Germany, finding that Motorola does indeed violate Apple’s patent on slide to unlock technology with the lockscreen in their Gingerbread UI overlay.
The ruling covers traditional Motorola phones that feature the slide to unlock feature, but not on Motorola’s Xoom tablet, which utilizes the circular unlock feature found in Android 3.0 Honeycomb and Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich.
Motorola will likely appeal the decision, opening the door for Apple to re-challenge the circular unlock feature found in the newest Google operating systems. If a higher court rules that even the circular unlock feature is in violation of Apple’s patent, it could spell trouble for Motorola (and Google), which will need to come up with a different methodology for unlocking a device from the lockscreen, or do away with the lockscreen altogether.
We’re sure the scope of the slide to unlock patent infringement cases will spread over coming months, and expect we’ll see some more cases in the U.S. before too long (as you recall, Apple filed suit against the Galaxy Nexus - and Android 4.0 - just a few days ago). If the ruling out of Germany is any indication, it spells potential trouble for Google’s Android OS. We will, of course, bring you more patent news as the cases develop.
Apple lands injunction against Motorola in Germany over Slide to Unlock patent:
You remember that Slide to Unlock patent Apple was handed back in October? Turns out the lawsuits are going to get uglier, if a victory secured by Apple in Germany today is any indication. According to FOSS Patents, the Munich I Regional Court just issued an injunction against Motorola smartphones in Germany, finding that Motorola does indeed violate Apple’s patent on slide to unlock technology with the lockscreen in their Gingerbread UI overlay.
The ruling covers traditional Motorola phones that feature the slide to unlock feature, but not on Motorola’s Xoom tablet, which utilizes the circular unlock feature found in Android 3.0 Honeycomb and Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich.
Motorola will likely appeal the decision, opening the door for Apple to re-challenge the circular unlock feature found in the newest Google operating systems. If a higher court rules that even the circular unlock feature is in violation of Apple’s patent, it could spell trouble for Motorola (and Google), which will need to come up with a different methodology for unlocking a device from the lockscreen, or do away with the lockscreen altogether.
We’re sure the scope of the slide to unlock patent infringement cases will spread over coming months, and expect we’ll see some more cases in the U.S. before too long (as you recall, Apple filed suit against the Galaxy Nexus - and Android 4.0 - just a few days ago). If the ruling out of Germany is any indication, it spells potential trouble for Google’s Android OS. We will, of course, bring you more patent news as the cases develop.
for the Kindle ...
Heard John Taylor on NPR last night and decided to get his new book:
Also, for the bargain shopper:
 | First Principles: Five Keys to Restoring America's Prosperity by John B. Taylor
Permalink: http://amzn.com/B006P5COJ4
Only $9.99 for the Kindle Edition
|
Also, for the bargain shopper:
 | Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged, and Worsened the Financial Crisis (HOOVER INST PRESS PUBLICATION) by John B. Taylor
Permalink: http://amzn.com/B0024NLN66
Only $2.40 for the Kindle Edition!
|
A COUPLE OF CHARTS TO SET THE TONE FOR THE WEEKEND.
via Instapundit:
A COUPLE OF CHARTS TO SET THE TONE FOR THE WEEKEND.
From James Pethokoukis:
And from the House Republican Study Committee:
"Just a reminder that there’s a lot more at stake than who pays for birth control."
Well put.
A COUPLE OF CHARTS TO SET THE TONE FOR THE WEEKEND.
From James Pethokoukis:
And from the House Republican Study Committee:
"Just a reminder that there’s a lot more at stake than who pays for birth control."
Well put.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Supreme Court should take on New York City’s rent control laws
from WaPo:
Supreme Court should take on New York City’s rent control laws
"Rent control is unconstitutional because it is an egregious and uncompensated physical occupation of property. The Constitution says that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Harmons get no compensation for being coerced into privatized welfare: The state shows compassion to tenants — many of whom are not needy; one of the Harmons’ entitled tenants owns a house on Long Island — by compelling landlords to subsidize them."
An example of a well-intentioned government policy that has metastasized into a system that (often) favors well-connected, wealthy individuals rather than those who truly need assistance. And makes a horrendously expensive and scarce market for (non-controlled) apartments even worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)